SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


XML - Good and Bad


XML - Good and Bad

Author
Message
Vasant Raj
Vasant Raj
SSC-Addicted
SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)SSC-Addicted (421 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 421 Visits: 137

The details displayed are not very intutive for the user in your solution. It is better if you provide TREE like structure for your folders, which can make the users task easier.

thnx


Lambchop4697
Lambchop4697
SSC Rookie
SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)SSC Rookie (44 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 44 Visits: 43

I was not overwhelmed with either the explanation of the problem, solution, or the conclusion. I am even unclear if the real problem is the algorithm used for creating and then parsing the XML or the actual creation of the XML file. Having worked with XML, this approach should work fine for exchanges of data and data definition structures. However, part way through this article, the developer hints that "speed" is the problem. The totallity of this article appears to be a side-bar note to another developer so that they can commiserate on the reality that there is no perfect development tool.

I would have found this article of some value had there been a real description of the problem (# of records, goals of the project, # of directories, # of databases, reason for the project in the first place, etc .etc.). It would have been even nicier had there been even a brief discussion of the algorithm approach. It mentions recursion...and having done recursive functions in AI design for years, I have seen even experienced programmers create some of the most inefficient recursion code possible. And finally, the article provides no solid solution approach showing 1) what went wrong, 2) how the "wrong" was identified, and 3) how the solution was so much better. Did the author just use default XML builds from SQL? If so, why not complain that VS2005 does not do a better job of writing the code for you? Maybe because, more experienced developers understand that 99% of the time, its a person problem and not a tech tool problem.

Other than these basic criticisms, I would say that SQL Server Central editors were hard pressed to find something of value to link to other than a brief commentary from a programmer that had a bad week and then provided us a fragmented review of his experience.

'nuff said

thanks for the effort...





Gerhard Schmeusser
Gerhard Schmeusser
SSC Journeyman
SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)SSC Journeyman (95 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 95 Visits: 136

I cannot see how even 1000 sibling directories should create a bottleneck. To me, another typical design mistake seems to have been made by the author namely that all data was transmitted at once, i.e. all directories and subdirectories with files. Only the first level should be queried and displayed firsthand and if the user expands a node the application should query again for the next level and so on.

Anyway what's the use of storing the contents of an ever changing file system in a database??


Darin
Darin
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)Forum Newbie (4 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 4 Visits: 1
Sorry, but one of the first sentences:

"Because of the small size of files, the data transfer speed has also increased considerably, especially for web applications"

blew it for me. There's no way anyone that knows much on the subject can possibly consider XML files as having "small size" when compared to most of the alternatives out there.
XML is somewhat self documenting and usually human readable, but size and efficiency are not it's strong points.



Matthew Evans
Matthew Evans
SSC Rookie
SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)SSC Rookie (27 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 27 Visits: 14

Sorry. This article is devoid of any merit or insight.

If I can summarize it, the salient points are:

Xml is useful. But dont overuse it.

Did I miss anything?


Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search